US v. Jecobe Floyd, No. 08-4625 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4625 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JECOBE ANTWAN FLOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00127-RJC-1) Submitted: January 13, 2009 Before WILLIAMS, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and TRAXLER January 15, 2009 and KING, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Cecilia Oseguera, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Adam Christopher Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jecobe Antwan Floyd appeals sentence imposed for felon. Floyd s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. possession of a his conviction firearm by a and convicted California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether Floyd s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Government declined to file a brief. pro se supplemental brief. Floyd has not filed a Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel raises the issue of whether the district court committed procedural or substantive error in determining Floyd s sentence, but concludes that there was no sentencing error. A sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion with the review encompassing reasonableness. (2007). both Gall procedural v. United soundness States, 128 and S. substantive Ct. 586, 597 Floyd s counsel questions whether the court erred in failing to mention one of the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). However, the court was not required to list every § 3553(a) factor in fashioning Floyd s sentence, see United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007), and the record reflects that the properly considered court both listened the § 3553(a) factors. 2 to Floyd s proffered arguments evidence and and the Next, counsel raises whether Floyd s 52-month sentence was greater properly than calculated sentence within reasonable. necessary to Guidelines the comply range Guidelines with § 46 to was range 3553(a). 57 is The months. A presumptively The record reveals that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and there is no indication that the district court abused Applying a its discretion presumption of in fashioning reasonableness to the the sentence. Guidelines sentence, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2467-68 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence), we conclude that Floyd cannot rebut the presumption of reasonableness and that his sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Floyd s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
